Pollution threat to existence of planet: Why National Green Tribunal invoked Roman era ‘doctrine of public trust’

“The Doctrine of Public Trust asserts that vital natural resources such as rivers, seashores, forests, and air are held in trust by the State for the benefit and enjoyment of the public. Rooted in Roman law, which classified these resources as common property (res communis) or unowned (res nullius), and refined by English common law, this doctrine places a fiduciary duty on governments to protect them from privatisation or exploitation that compromises public interests,” the January 29 verdict said.

Forefathers worshipped nature, greed threatens planet

• Nature and its elements have been worshiped as ‘Gods’ since the time immemorial.
• Our forefathers knew the importance of preserving the environment both for their own well-being and for the benefit of future generations.
• However, over time, human greed has led us to forget this wisdom, treating nature as expendable at our expense and that of future generations.
• The degradation of the natural resource and pollution of different kinds have a cascading effect on the environment, which now is a global issue and poses a threat to the very existence of our planet.
• Such degradation is the catalyst for the drastic climatic changes and challenges we are facing now.
• The pollution and depletion of water resources, more particularly groundwater, is a foreseeable threat to all living beings.

Key Findings

• The ‘Doctrine of Public Trust’ imposes three key restrictions- resources must remain accessible for public use, cannot be sold for private gain, and must be preserved in their natural state.
• Courts internationally, have extended its scope to protect wetlands, riparian forests, and ecologically fragile lands, emphasising the need for environmental preservation in light of modern ecological challenges.
• This evolving interpretation reflects the doctrine’s relevance in maintaining the balance between sustainable development and environmental conservation.
• Right to life inherently includes the right to enjoy, pollution free environment, which are essential for the full enjoyment of life.
• If anything endangers or impairs the quality of life in derogation of laws, a citizen has the right to have recourse to Article 32 of the Constitution to address the pollution of the environment which may be detrimental to the quality of life.
• This court has recognised the concept of ‘right to healthy environment’ as part of the ‘right to life’ under Article 21 and thereby has also recognised the ‘right to clean drinking water’ as a fundamental right.
• In fact, environmental rights, which encompass a group of collective rights, are now described as “third generation” rights.
• Therefore, the state, so as to sustain its claim of functioning for the welfare of its citizens, is bound to regulate water supply by safeguarding, maintaining and restoring the water bodies to protect the right to healthy water and prevent health hazards.
• This court has also laid down in many cases that the states shall ensure that the water bodies are free from encroachments and steps must be taken to restore the water bodies.
• The industries are liable to not only compensate but also bear the costs for restoring the river.
• The remedial action would not stop at restoration, but it is a continuous process, to sustain the river, pollution free.
• A fresh cause of action would commence again if the industries and the local bodies fail in their duty.
• The idea of the ‘polluter pays’ principle, though seemingly progressive, must be carefully examined to ensure it does not result in the emergence of a ‘right to pollute’ for those who are financially capable or willing to pay.
• The ‘polluter pays’ principle, when applied absolutely, has not yet sufficiently mitigated the harm caused to the environment, yielding below-average results.
• The tanneries have clearly exploited this system, discharging effluents, assuming that payment of compensation grants them the right to pollute.
• It is a broader problem seen across industries in developing countries, where it is often seen as more cost-effective to pay the relatively low compensation than to invest in cleaner technologies that would reduce pollution.
• Industries, when faced with a choice between the marginal damage cost and the marginal cleaning cost, often opt for the former, thus perpetuating the cycle of environmental degradation.
• The polluter is not only liable to payment of compensation but also to restore the environment.
• There is a persistent duty on the state to ensure that all steps are taken to ensure the protection of the environment.
• The state, even in the absence of any law, must put in place a mechanism to address the issue of degradation by taking preventive measures.
• The state must endeavour through its research wings to identify the industries and activities which impacts or can impact the environment before permitting such activities.
• There is a possibility that the damage could not only be irreversible but also the effects of such damage could be far more threatening to the human race than the commercial benefits arising out of such activity.
• Polluters bear the absolute liability for the harm they cause to the environment.
• Unlike tangible property damage, the harm inflicted upon ecosystems—such as the destruction of flora, fauna, aquatic life, and the disruption to micro-organisms—is not easily measurable in monetary terms.
• Additionally, the impact on local communities, particularly their livelihoods, is difficult to assess.
• The loss of biodiversity, degradation of natural resources, and long-term socio-economic consequences extend beyond the realm of financial valuation.
• Therefore, while the liability is clear, the process of determining an equitable compensation amount is fraught with challenges.
• It must account for both the tangible and intangible damage inflicted on the environment and the affected communities.

Vellore: Sad reality

• It is evident that Vellore’s current status highlights the critical consequences of unchecked industrialization and exploitation of natural resources.
• The district, once known for its agricultural prosperity and natural resources, now faces a grave environmental crisis driven by pollution from the tanning industries, illegal sand mining, and poor waste management.
• These activities have degraded vital ecosystems, polluted water bodies like the river Palar and reduced the groundwater availability, severely impacting the livelihoods of farmers, fishermen, and local communities.
• This court has the duty to foster a more comprehensive, balanced, and sustainable approach to curb the water pollution in the river.
• The principles mentioned not only ensure compliance but also encourage long-term strategies for environmental protection, public health, and sustainable development.
• Until the damage caused by the tanneries to the ecology is reversed, the polluters have a continuing duty to pay compensation.
• It is the bounden duty of both the central and state governments and local authorities to prevent, protect and preserve natural resources and maintain a healthy and clean environment.

Background

• A demand notice dated June 6, 2025 was issued by the Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board (MPPCB), directing a private developer Landmark Ventures to deposit Rs 8.94 lakh as environmental compensation.
• The penalty followed a joint committee inspection conducted on December 20, 2023, at the ‘Prospera’, a multi-storied residential complex in Bagmugaliya, Bhopal.
• During the inspection, authorities found the sewage treatment plant (STP) installed at the premises was non-operational.
• The sewage collection tank was empty.
• Untreated sewage water was flowing out of the premises and accumulating on an adjoining open plot.
• These findings were recorded in an action taken report (ATR) submitted to the tribunal on January 3, 2024.
• On January 4, 2024, the NGT directed the state pollution control board to finalise the recommendation for environmental compensation after granting the project proponent an opportunity of hearing.

Developer’s defense

• Advocates Siddharth Prasad Nandedkar, Jatin Singh and Ayush Sen, appeared for the developer.
• The counsel said that a tripartite agreement had shifted responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the STP to the residents’ cooperative society.
• They submitted that the demand was issued arbitrarily, without proper consideration of the developer’s representations.
• Once a completion certificate was issued, the developer could no longer be held liable for operational deficiencies, the counsel argued.
• The counsel submitted that there was no pollution attributable to it and questioned the manner in which inspection and sampling had been conducted.

Pollution control board’s rebuttal

• Advocate Parul Bhadoria, appearing for the MPPCB, opposing the arguments by the developer said that the inspection was carried out strictly under statutory powers and pursuant to earlier NGT directions.
• The developer had failed to obtain mandatory Consent to Operate under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, the counsel argued.
• She submitted that the completion certificate dated August 9, 2024, was irrelevant because the environmental violations occurred between September 22 and December 27, 2023, when the project was still under the developer’s control.
• The board emphasised that private agreements cannot extinguish statutory environmental liability, especially when untreated sewage is found being discharged into the environment, the counsel submitted.